Implementation and Assessment of an Informal Virtual Elective for Medical Student Radiation Oncology Exploration During the COVID19 Pandemic: a Brief Report.

Subspecialty exposure during medical school can be limited. Moreover, the COVID19 pandemic prevented most onsite elective medical student (MS) rotations during 2020. Therefore, we sought to create and assess the efficacy of an informal virtual elective (IVE) for MSs to explore radiation oncology (RO) at our institution. We created IVE activities including invitations to resident didactics, a faculty lecture series, and interactive virtual events with residents and faculty. MSs were offered RO resident and faculty mentors and the opportunity to deliver a lecture. Pre- and post-IVE evaluation surveys were sent to 27 4th year MSs. Surveys utilized importance ordering (1=most important; reported as median (interquartile range), free response, and Likert-type questions (5 = extremely, 1=not at all). Our IVE, held from July to October 2020, had a median of 11 students (range 7-18) attend each activity. Pre- and post-IVE surveys were completed by 22/27 (81%) and 20/27 (74%) MSs, respectively. In pre-IVE, MSs reported participating in the IVE for faculty/resident interaction (1.5 [1, 2]), networking (3 [2, 3]), and learning (4 [3-5]). In post-IVE, MSs reported benefit from faculty mentors (5 [4, 5]), delivering a presentation (5 [3-5]), and faculty lectures (4.5 [4, 5]). In post-IVE, MSs preferred a full onsite away elective (16, 80%) over an official virtual elective (1, 5%) or IVE (3, 15%). Overall, MSs reported that the IVE provided an adequate introduction to RO at our institution (4 [4, 5]). Alternative virtual elective experiences allow MSs to informally evaluate medical subspecialties and could be offered even if formal elective opportunities are available.

Comparative Toxicities and Cost of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy, Proton Radiation, and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy Among Younger Men With Prostate Cancer.

Purpose To compare the toxicities and cost of proton radiation and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for prostate cancer among men younger than 65 years of age with private insurance. Methods Using the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database, we identified men who received radiation for prostate cancer between 2008 and 2015. Patients undergoing proton therapy and SBRT were propensity score-matched to IMRT patients on the basis of clinical and sociodemographic factors. Proportional hazards models compared the cumulative incidence of urinary, bowel, and erectile dysfunction toxicities by treatment. Cost from a payer's perspective was calculated from claims and adjusted to 2015 dollars. Results A total of 693 proton therapy patients were matched to 3,465 IMRT patients. Proton therapy patients had a lower risk of composite urinary toxicity (33% v 42% at 2 years; P < .001) and erectile dysfunction (21% v 28% at 2 years; P < .001), but a higher risk of bowel toxicity (20% v 15% at 2 years; P = .02). Mean radiation cost was $115,501 for proton therapy patients and $59,012 for IMRT patients ( P < .001). A total of 310 SBRT patients were matched to 3,100 IMRT patients. There were no significant differences in composite urinary, bowel, or erectile dysfunction toxicities between SBRT and IMRT patients ( P > .05), although a higher risk of urinary fistula was noted with SBRT (1% v 0.1% at 2 years; P = .009). Mean radiation cost for SBRT was $49,504 and $57,244 for IMRT ( P < .001). Conclusion Among younger men with prostate cancer, proton radiation was associated with significant reductions in urinary toxicity but increased bowel toxicity at nearly twice the cost of IMRT. SBRT and IMRT were associated with similar toxicity profiles; SBRT was modestly less expensive than IMRT.