Subspecialty training in Europe: a report by the European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: ESGO (European Society of Gynaecological Oncology) and partners are continually improving the developmental opportunities for gynaecological oncology fellows. The objectives of this survey were to evaluate the progress in the infrastructure of the training systems in Europe over the past decade. We also evaluated training and assessment techniques, the perceived relevance of ENYGO (European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists) initiatives, and unmet needs of trainees. METHODOLOGY: National representatives of ENYGO from 39 countries were contacted with an electronic survey. A graduation in well/moderately/loosely-structured training systems was performed. Descriptive statistical analysis and frequency tables, as well as two-sided Fisher's exact test, were used. RESULTS: National representatives from 33 countries answered our survey questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 85%. A national fellowship is offered in 22 countries (66.7%). A logbook to document progress during training is mandatory in 24 (72.7%) countries. A logbook of experience is only utilized in a minority of nations (18%) for assessment purposes. In 42.4% of countries, objective assessments are recognized. Trainees in most countries (22 (66.7%)) requested additional training in advanced laparoscopic surgery. 13 (39.4%) countries have a loosely-structured training system, 11 (33.3%) a moderately-structured training system, and 9 (27.3%) a well-structured training system. CONCLUSION: Since the last publication in 2011, ENYGO was able to implement new activities, workshops, and online education to support training of gynaecological oncology fellows, which were all rated by the respondents as highly useful. This survey also reveals the limitations in establishing more accredited centers, centralized cancer care, and the lack of laparoscopic training.

Gynecologic oncology training systems in Europe: a report from the European network of young gynaecological oncologists.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the study were to highlight some of the differences in training systems and opportunities for training in gynecologic oncology across Europe and to draw attention to steps that can be taken to improve training prospects and experiences of European trainees in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: The European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists national representatives from 34 countries were asked to review and summarize the training system in their countries of origin and fulfill a mini-questionnaire evaluating different aspects of training. We report analysis of outcomes of the mini-questionnaire and subsequent discussion at the European Network of Young Gynaecological Oncologists national representatives Asian Pacific Organization for Cancer Prevention meeting in Istanbul (April 2010). RESULTS: Training fellowships in gynecologic oncology are offered by 18 countries (53%). The median duration of training is 2.5 years (interquartile range, 2.0-3.0 years). Chemotherapy administration is part of training in 70.5% (24/34) countries. Most of the countries (26/34) do not have a dedicated national gynecologic-oncology journal. All trainees reported some or good access to training in advanced laparoscopic surgical techniques, whereas 41% indicated no access, and 59% some access to training opportunities in robotic surgery. European countries were grouped into 3 different categories on the basis of available training opportunities in gynecologic oncology: well-structured, moderately structured, and loosely structured training systems. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further harmonization and standardization of training programs and structures in gynecologic oncology across Europe. This is of particular relevance for loosely structured countries that lag behind the moderately structured and well-structured ones.