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.

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.

Disparities in Access to Radiation Therapy by Race and Ethnicity in the United States With Focus on American Indian/Alaska Native People.

OBJECTIVES: Striking disparities in access to radiation therapy (RT) exist, especially among racial and ethnic-minority patients. We analyzed census block group data to evaluate differences in travel distance to RT as a function of race and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and rurality. METHODS: The Directory of Radiotherapy Centers provided the addresses of facilities containing linear accelerators for RT. We classified block groups as majority (≥ 50%) American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN), black, white, Asian, no single racial majority, or Hispanic regardless of race. We used the Area Deprivation Index to classify deprivation and Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes to classify rurality. Generalized linear mixed models tested associations between these factors and distance to nearest RT facility. RESULTS: Median distance to nearest RT facility was 72 miles in AI/AN-majority block groups, but 4 to 7 miles in block groups with non-AI/AN majorities. Multivariable models estimated that travel distances in AI/AN-majority block groups were 39 to 41 miles longer than in areas with non-AI/AN majorities. Travel distance was 1.3 miles longer in the more deprived areas versus less deprived areas and 16 to 32 miles longer in micropolitan, small town, and rural areas versus metropolitan areas. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients in block groups with AI/AN-majority populations, nonmetropolitan location, and low socioeconomic status experience substantial travel disparities in access to RT. Future research with more granular community- and individual-level data should explore the many other known barriers to access to cancer care and their relationship to the barriers posed by distance to RT care.

Disparities in Access to Radiation Therapy Facilities Among American Indians/Alaska Natives and Hispanics in Washington State.

PURPOSE: Racial and ethnic minorities in the state of Washington experience higher cancer mortality relative to whites. We sought to characterize differences in travel distance to radiation therapy (RT) facilities in Washington by race and ethnicity with a special focus on non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives as a contributor to limited access and cancer disparities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Geocoded mortality data from Washington Department of Health (2011-2018) were used to identify decedents with mortality related to all-causes, all cancers, and cancers likely requiring access to RT. This was determined from optimal RT usage estimates by diagnosis. RT facility locations were ascertained from the Directory of Radiation Therapy Centers and confirmed. Distance from decedents' address listed on death certificates to nearest RT facility was calculated. Generalized mixed models were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: We identified 418,754 deaths; 109,134 were cancer-related, 60,973 likely required RT. Among decedents with cancers likely requiring RT, non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives decedents would have had to travel 1.16 times (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.24) farther from their residences to reach the nearest treatment facility compared with non-Hispanic whites. This association existed in metro counties but was more pronounced in nonmetro counties (1.39 times farther; 95% CI, 1.22-1.58). In addition, Hispanics would have had to travel 1.11 times farther (95% CI, 1.06-1.16) to reach the nearest facility compared with non-Hispanic whites, primarily due to differences in urban counties. Decedents in nonmetro counties lived on average 35 miles (SD = 29) from RT centers and non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives in nonmetro counties 53 miles (SD = 38). Compared with non-Hispanic white decedents, those who were non-Hispanic black, non-Hispanic Asian, and non-Hispanic Native Hawaiian decedents lived closer to RT facilities. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant disparities in access to RT facilities in Washington, specifically for non-Hispanic American Indians and Alaska Natives and rural decedents. The findings call for initiatives to improve access to critical cancer treatment services for these underserved populations with known disparities in cancer deaths.

Intensity modulated radiation therapy following lumpectomy in early-stage breast cancer: Patterns of use and cost consequences among Medicare beneficiaries.

PURPOSE: In 2013, the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) issued a Choosing Wisely recommendation against the routine use of intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for whole breast irradiation. We evaluated IMRT use and subsequent impact on Medicare expenditure in the period immediately preceding this recommendation to provide a baseline measure of IMRT use and associated cost consequences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: SEER records for women ≥66 years with first primary diagnosis of Stage I/II breast cancer (2008-2011) were linked with Medicare claims (2007-2012). Eligibility criteria included lumpectomy within 6 months of diagnosis and radiotherapy within 6 months of lumpectomy. We evaluated IMRT versus conventional radiotherapy (cRT) use overall and by SEER registry (12 sites). We used generalized estimating equations logit models to explore adjusted odds ratios (OR) for associations between clinical, sociodemographic, and health services characteristics and IMRT use. Mean costs were calculated from Medicare allowable costs in the year after diagnosis. RESULTS: Among 13,037 women, mean age was 74.4, 50.5% had left-sided breast cancer, and 19.8% received IMRT. IMRT use varied from 0% to 52% across SEER registries. In multivariable analysis, left-sided breast cancer (OR 1.75), living in a big metropolitan area (OR 2.39), living in a census tract with ≤$90,000 median income (OR 1.75), neutral or favorable local coverage determination (OR 3.86, 1.72, respectively), and free-standing treatment facility (OR 3.49) were associated with receipt of IMRT (p<0.001). Mean expenditure in the year after diagnosis was $8,499 greater (p<0.001) among women receiving IMRT versus cRT. CONCLUSION: We found highly variable use of IMRT and higher expenditure in the year after diagnosis among women treated with IMRT (vs. cRT) with early-stage breast cancer and Medicare insurance. Our findings suggest a considerable opportunity to reduce treatment variation and cost of care while improving alignment between practice and clinical guidelines.

Use of stereotactic radiosurgery for brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer in the United States.

PURPOSE: The indications for treatment of brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) remain controversial. We studied patterns, predictors, and cost of SRS use in elderly patients with NSCLC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare (SEER-Medicare) database, we identified patients with NSCLC who were diagnosed with brain metastases between 2000 and 2007. Our cohort included patients treated with radiation therapy and not surgical resection as initial treatment for brain metastases. RESULTS: We identified 7684 patients treated with radiation therapy within 2 months after brain metastases diagnosis, of whom 469 (6.1%) cases had billing codes for SRS. Annual SRS use increased from 3.0% in 2000 to 8.2% in 2005 and varied from 3.4% to 12.5% by specific SEER registry site. After controlling for clinical and sociodemographic characteristics, we found SRS use was significantly associated with increasing year of diagnosis, specific SEER registry, higher socioeconomic status, admission to a teaching hospital, no history of participation in low-income state buy-in programs (a proxy for Medicaid eligibility), no extracranial metastases, and longer intervals from NSCLC diagnosis. The average cost per patient associated with radiation therapy was 2.19 times greater for those who received SRS than for those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The use of SRS in patients with metastatic NSCLC increased almost 3-fold from 2000 to 2005. In addition, we found significant variations in SRS use across SEER registries and socioeconomic quartiles. National practice patterns in this study suggested both a lack of consensus and an overall limited use of the approach among elderly patients before 2008.