RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this survey study is to compare the experiences of programs and applicants in the MedPhys Match (MPM) in the 2020-21 match cycle with experiences reported from previous match cycles. The 2020-21 match cycle was unique in that recruitment and interviewing were almost exclusively virtual during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants and programs registered for the 2020-21 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, ranking, and post-match stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: Advantages and disadvantages to the virtual interviewing experience were reported by applicants and program directors (PDs). The advantages included reduced cost and greater scheduling flexibility with fewer scheduling conflicts, allowing applicants to consider more programs. These advantages greatly outweighed the disadvantages such as the inability to meet faculty/staff and current residents in person and gauge the feel of the program. PDs recognized the advantages of minimal costs and time savings for applicants. Programs reported it was difficult to convey workplace culture and the physical environment and to gauge personality and interpersonal skills of the applicants. CONCLUSION: The virtual interviewing environment for residency recruitment in medical physics is strongly preferred by applicants over required in-person interviews. The advantages identified by applicants outweigh the disadvantages, allowing applicants to feel confident in their ranking decisions and overall satisfied with their match results. PDs acknowledge the greater equity of access to interviews for applicants in the virtual environment, however, they are overall less satisfied with their ability to showcase their program's strengths and to assess the personality of applicants. Caution is urged when considering a hybrid interview model to ensure fair assessments that do not depend on whether an applicant chooses to accept an optional in-person interview or site visit.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Internato e Residência , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiologia , Pandemias , Docentes , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
PURPOSE: To examine the effectiveness and safety of single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery using a volume-adapted dosing strategy in patients with 4 to 10 brain metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Adult patients with 4 to 10 brain metastases were eligible for this prospective trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were local recurrence, distant brain failure, neurologic death, and rate of adverse events. Exploratory objectives were neurocognition, quality of life, dosimetric data, salvage rate, and radionecrosis. Dose was prescribed in a single fraction per RTOG 90-05 or as 5 Gy × 5 fractions for lesions ≥3 cm diameter, lesions involving critical structures, or single-fraction brain V12Gy >20 mL. RESULTS: Forty patients were treated with median age of 61 years, Karnofsky performance status 90, and 6 brain metastases. Twenty-two patients survived longer than expected from the time of protocol SRS, with 1 living patient who has not reached that milestone. Median overall survival was 8.1 months with a 1-year overall survival of 35.7%. The 1-year local recurrence rate was 5% (10 of 204 of evaluable lesions) in 12.5% (4 of 32) of the patients. Distant brain failure was observed in 19 of 32 patients with a 1-year rate of 35.8%. Grade 1-2 headache was the most common complaint, with no grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse events. Radionecrosis was observed in only 5 lesions, with a 1-year rate of 1.5%. Rate of neurologic death was 20%. Neurocognition and quality of life did not significantly change 3 months after SRS compared with pretreatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that volume-adapted dosing single-isocenter multitarget stereotactic radiosurgery is an effective and safe treatment for patients with 4 to 10 brain metastases.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gauge the experiences of applicants and program directors (PDs) in the Medical Physics (MedPhys) Match (MPM) and to determine the most important characteristics and factors that influence decision-making for applicants and programs when screening, interviewing, and ranking in the MPM. Opinions were also solicited from applicants and PDs on the status of medical physics residencies and the selection process, such as the availability of residency positions and satisfaction with the match process. METHODS: A survey was sent to all applicants registered for the 2015-2018 MPM and to all PDs registered for the 2015-2017 MPM. Survey questions asked about the pre-interview screening, interview, and ranking stages of the residency match process. Survey data were analyzed using graphical methods and spreadsheet tools. RESULTS: An increasing percentage of applicants are female and/or hold a PhD as their highest degree. The over all number of interview invitations per applicant has increased, leading some applicants to decline interviews with the top reasons being cost of travel and scheduling conflicts. The top considerations for applicants in ranking programs were residency program/institution reputation, program structure/organization, and facilities/equipment available. The primary considerations identified by PDs for ranking applicants included impressions from the interview, personality fit, and clinical potential. While two-thirds of applicants agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that a residency position was difficult to obtain, roughly one-third of PDs agree that the current residency placement rate is a problem. CONCLUSION: Four years of survey data on the experiences of applicants and PDs participating in the MPM is useful to future participants navigating the residency match system. It is hoped that the data will be helpful to inform improvements and to enhance understanding of the residency match system and how it shapes our profession.