Gender diversity in radiology: Shedding light on the 256 shades of grey.

INTRODUCTION: Despite medical school cohorts being composed of approximately 50% men and women, trainee positions in Clinical Radiology remain predominantly occupied by men. This study aims to identify reasons behind the gender gap, explore why more women are not pursuing a career in Clinical Radiology and to assess if there are gender differences in these reasons. METHODS: Prospective multi-centre study using a voluntary, anonymous questionnaire aimed at senior Medical Students and Junior Doctors. RESULTS: A total of 318 participants responded to the questionnaire - 197 women (61.9%), 114 men (35.8%), 4 non-binary (1.3%), 2 preferred not to answer gender (0.6%), 1 I/they (0.3%). The most common reasons for not considering Clinical Radiology as a specialty include 'perceived limited patient contact' (62%), 'never/rarely exposed to it' (59%) and 'too lonely' (49%). Reasons with the largest gender discrepancies were 'too technology heavy' and 'limited patient contact', both cited more frequently by women. Most respondents indicated that their opinions of Clinical Radiology may change with more exposure during medical school, more patient contact and more mentorship. CONCLUSION: This study has revealed multiple reasons why women may not pursue specialty training in Clinical Radiology. Notable differences were found in the reasonings provided by men and women. Limited Clinical Radiology exposure and mentorship in medical school result in a lack of interest in this specialty as a career option. A proposed solution is to offer more medical school lectures and more junior doctor rotations to debunk stereotypes that may be negatively impacting opinions on Clinical Radiology. More mentorship of Medical Students and Junior Doctors, particularly from women, may also help decrease the gender gap.

Percutaneous microwave ablation of T1a renal cell carcinomas: A 10-year single-center retrospective review.

INTRODUCTION: Partial nephrectomy is currently the preferred treatment option for T1a renal cell carcinomas (RCC), with nephron-sparing techniques, including microwave ablation, becoming more common in select patients. Primary aims are to document outcomes of microwave ablation for T1a RCCs in an Australian tertiary centre to add to the evidence for its safety and efficacy. METHODS: The prospectively maintained Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital Interventional Radiology database was retrospectively searched for all Renal Microwave ablations completed between June 2012 and February 2022. This database and a combination of hospital programmes including Agfa Impax PACS, Bossnet digital medical record and iSoft Clinical Manager were used to extract the relevant data which was anonymized and entered into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients underwent microwave ablation for 50 tumours. Of these, there were two local and two distant recurrences. A fifth patient had metastases on presentation. Higher local recurrence rates were associated with larger tumour size (P = 0.043). Tumour proximity to the collecting system <4 mm was associated with higher rates of complications (P = 0.020). RENAL scores did not show statistically significant correlation with complications (P = 0.092) or local or distant recurrence. Notably, the study follow-up time was longer than many comparative studies (mean = 2796, ~7.66 years censoring for death and mean = 832 days, ~2.28 years not censoring for death). CONCLUSION: Consistent with the literature, this study further demonstrates that microwave ablation is a safe and efficacious option for treatment of T1a RCC.

Navigating the glass labyrinth: Addressing gender diversity in Australian and New Zealand representative radiology leadership.

INTRODUCTION: Gender inequity among representative leadership in Clinical Radiology is a global issue, with the lack of gender diversity in leadership even more marked when compared to workforce representation. Women leaders face a disproportionate magnitude of seen and unseen challenges to leadership engagement and progression when compared to men (a 'glass labyrinth'), which is likely contributing to this discrepancy. The aim of the study was to examine and reflect on the state of gender diversity in representative leadership within the RANZCR Faculty of Clinical Radiology. METHODS: Review of the 2021 Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) Board, Clinical Radiology Faculty Council and local Branch Committees with regard to the numbers of women and men in representative roles. RESULTS: In 2021, the RANZCR Board had no women representatives from Clinical Radiology (one woman representative from Radiation Oncology). 1/5 Clinical Radiology Faculty Council office Bearers were women. Local Branch Committees had 16.3% (13/80) women representatives. Three branches (the NSW, ACT and Victorian branches) had no women representatives. There were no women Committee Chairs, Branch Secretaries or Treasurers, with 2/7 Branch Education Officers women. CONCLUSION: The issues underpinning gender inequality in representative leadership are complex and diverse, resulting in disproportionate losses of women radiologists along the leadership pathway compared to men. Unconscious biases, including assumptions of inferior capability, capacity and credibility among women radiologist leaders, create unique challenges at organisational, institutional and personal levels. Change cannot be achieved by passive momentum alone: concrete initiatives and active engagement are required. To improve leadership diversity, strategies must be multifaceted and supported at an organisational level.