A Phase I Trial of a Methionine Restricted Diet with Concurrent Radiation Therapy.

Methionine is an essential amino acid critical for cell growth and survival. Preclinical evidence suggests a methionine restricted diet (MRD) sensitizes cancer to radiation therapy (RT), without significant adverse effects. However, this has never been evaluated in humans. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of concurrent MRD with standard-of-care definitive RT in adults with any non-skin cancer malignancy. The MRD extended from 2 wk before RT initiation, through 2 wk beyond RT completion. The primary endpoint of safety was assessed as rate of grade 3 or higher acute and late toxicities. Feasibility was assessed with quantitative plasma amino acid panel every 2 wk during the MRD (target plasma methionine 13 µM). Nine patients were accrued over a two-year period, with five able to complete the treatment course. The trial was closed due to slow accrual and subjects' difficulty maintaining the diet. No grade 3 or higher adverse events were observed. Subjects' average methionine level was 18.8 µM during treatment, with average nadir 16.8 µM. These findings suggest the safety of concurrent MRD with RT, with toxicities comparable to those expected with RT alone. However, the diet was challenging, and unacceptable to most patients.

Limitations of the Medical Specialty Preference Inventory (MSPI) for Radiation Oncology.

The Medical Specialty Preference Inventory (MSPI), offered through the Association of American Medical Colleges Careers in Medicine website, is a widely utilized tool to aid medical students in career decision-making. Students who complete the MSPI are asked to rate 150 items on a 7-point Likert-type scale in terms of their desirability to the respondent as part of their future medical practice. The generated output of the MSPI gives a percent-probability that the student will enter each of 19 evaluated specialties that participate in the main residency match. However, the predictive validity of the MSPI is lowest (12.6%) for radiation oncology among all specialties. Radiation oncology, among other small specialties, is considered to be at high risk of being overshadowed in the model by large specialties like internal medicine. This manuscript highlights the limitations of the MSPI for radiation oncology, and suggests several opportunities to mitigate its deficiencies and improve students' knowledge and decision-making related to a career in radiation oncology.

Characterization of Research Mentorship During Medical School for Future Radiation Oncology Trainees.

Purpose: Medical student access to radiation oncology (RO) research opportunities is important for stimulating interest in the specialty. The purpose of this study was to assess the publication record during medical school of students who ultimately matched in RO, to characterize the source(s) of their RO mentorship relative to other specialties. Methods and Materials: We performed web-based searches to identify manuscripts published during medical school (defined as being published from January 2016 to December 2019) for all RO residents with postgraduate year 2 status in 2020 to 2021. Students with a PhD degree and international graduates were excluded. Characteristics of these publications, the student, and the primary mentor, were assessed. Results: A total of 435 publications were authored by the 148 included residents. In total, 115 (78%) attended a medical school with an affiliated RO residency program. The median number of publications per student was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4), and students' median byline author position was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4). In total, 351 publications (80.7%) were on a cancer-related topic, with 234 (53.8%) published in oncology-oriented journal, and 96 (22.0%) published in RO-oriented journals. There were 294 unique mentors, with 70 mentors (24%) on 2 or more student publications. Most mentors (n = 187, 64%) shared the same institution as the student. Mentors were most commonly radiation oncologists/radiation biologists/medical physicists (n = 153, 52.6%), surgical subspecialists (n = 53, 21%), and medical oncologists (n = 18, 6.2%). Students working with primary RO mentors were more likely to publish in an oncology-oriented journal (79.1% vs 18.2%, P < .01) or RO-oriented journal (36.2% vs 2.2%, P < .01), compared with students working with non-RO mentors, respectively. A higher percentage of publications with RO mentors occurred in the last 2 years of medical school compared with the first 2 years (64.0% vs 40.9%, respectively, P < .01). Conclusions: Approximately one-half of student publications among future RO residents are published in nononcology journals, and result from mentoring relationships with non-RO physicians.

Pilot Study Assessing Student Interest in Combined Residency Training Pathways With Radiation Oncology.

Purpose: Most medical students have limited exposure to radiation oncology (RO) before deciding which specialty to choose for residency. This may limit the number and diversity of RO applicants. The purpose of this study was to determine students' views on a combined pathway program of RO with internal medicine (IM), as well as other related medical specialties, as a potential means of overcoming barriers to interest in RO and the early decision point to solo training in a highly specialized field. Methods and Materials: In July to August 2022, all 299 United States student and postgraduate year 1 members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology were sent an electronic survey assessing their views on advantages and disadvantages of a combined IM/RO training pathway, and interest in several options of combined pathway programs. Results: Eighty participants completed the survey (response rate 27%). Thirty-four (43%) were very or extremely interested in IM/RO residency (median Likert-type rating 3, IQR 2-4). The most important potential advantages of an IM/RO pathway included greater flexibility in employment options (n = 51, 64%), enhanced general medical knowledge to facilitate ambitions in other career pathways (n = 46, 58%), improved patient care (n = 43, 54%), and having a pathway for combined hematologic/oncology and RO board certification (n = 46, 58%). In comparison to IM/RO, participants were significantly more interested in a combined RO and hematology/oncology program (median Likert-type rating 5, IQR 5-5, P = .005). Among the subgroup of 26 survey participants who believed it less likely they would apply for RO residency, 18 (69%) thought an IM/RO pathway would increase their interest in RO (median Likert-type rating 4, IQR 3-5). Interest in IM/RO did not differ by gender, race, or ethnicity. Conclusions: Combined training pathways involving RO were viewed positively by survey respondents, and may be particularly appealing to those less committed to a career in RO. Further research will help guide recommendations for the creation of these programs.

Assessment of Student Perceptions of Aspects of a Career in Radiation Oncology.

PURPOSE: To determine medical students' views of various aspects of a career in radiation oncology (RO) to identify areas that may benefit from reform and to guide initiatives to stimulate broader and more diverse student interest in the specialty. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was sent to student oncology interest group members at seven US medical schools. The survey asked students to rate 19 aspects of RO on a 5-point bipolar Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics are reported, along with subgroup analyses based on participants' demographics. RESULTS: The response rate was 51.1% (n = 275 of 538). The most favorably rated aspects of RO were outpatient working hours (mean ± SD Likert-type rating of 4.51 ± 0.82), routinely working with other physicians (4.45 ± 0.76), and use of advanced technology to treat patients. The most unfavorably rated aspects of RO were less geographic flexibility for residency or employment (1.98 ± 1.04), spending a lot of time on a computer doing treatment planning (2.80 ± 1.21), and having a job that is not well understood by most doctors and the general public (2.89 ± 1.02). Gender was associated with significant differences in 8 of 19 questions in how each aspect of RO was viewed. Few differences were observed based on race or ethnicity, though Asian participants had a significantly more favorable view of RO being a more science-oriented specialty compared with White or underrepresented students, respectively (3.50 versus 3.21 versus 2.84, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings inform the RO community in the development of more effective initiatives to encourage students to fully explore the specialty.

Assessment of Medical Student Research Mentorship in Radiation Oncology.

Purpose: Mentored medical student (MS) research opportunities in radiation oncology (RO) provide in-depth exposure to the specialty and may promote greater interest in a career in RO. Many radiation oncologists conduct research; however, the extent to which they directly engage MSs in their research is unknown. The purpose of this study was to characterize MS authorship in American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) journals. Methods and Materials: The byline and abstract of all scientific articles (ie, clinical, basic science, training/education) and case reports published from 2019 to 2021 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics; Practical Radiation Oncology; and Advances in Radiation Oncology were reviewed. Characteristics of MSs and senior authors are reported. Results: A total of 105 of 1785 articles (5.8%) included an MS author, among which 72 (68.6%) were clinical, 13 training/education (12.4%), 12 case reports (11.4%), and 8 basic science (7.6%). MS authors were more common for publications in Advances in Radiation Oncology (9.0%) than Practical Radiation Oncology (6.4%) or the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics (4.2%; P = .002). There were 125 unique MS authors from 72 institutions, among which 40 were first author (32.0%), 28 second author (22.4%), and 57 third (or higher) author (45.6%). There were 88 unique senior authors from 55 institutions, among which 10 (11.3%) were on 2 or more MS publications, and 57 (64.7%) shared the same institution as the MS. The median number of articles per mentor institution was 1 (interquartile range, 1-2), and the mentor institutions in the upper quartile in terms of number of MS publications accounted for 53 (50.5%) of all MS publications. Conclusions: Few publications in American Society for Radiation Oncology journals include MS authors with mentorship disproportionately from a small number of academic faculty at select institutions. These findings suggest that there is great potential for radiation oncologists to proactively engage more students in their work.

Oncology Physician Workforce Diversity: Rationale, Trends, Barriers, and Solutions.

ABSTRACT: This chapter will discuss (1) the rationale for physician workforce diversity and inclusion in oncology; (2) current and historical physician workforce demographic trends in oncology, including workforce data at various training and career levels, such as graduate medical education and as academic faculty or practicing physicians; (3) reported barriers and challenges to diversity and inclusion in oncology, such as exposure, access, preparation, mentorship, socioeconomic burdens, and interpersonal, structural, systemic bias; and (4) potential interventions and evidence-based solutions to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion and mitigate bias in the oncology physician workforce.

Evaluation of a Radiation Oncology Microclerkship as a Component of Medical Student Education.

Compared to most oncologic subspecialties, radiation oncology (RO) lacks a natural pathway for incorporation into the clinical clerkships, and few students ever complete a formal rotation in RO. The feasibility, and perceived value, of a 1-day "microclerkship" exposure in RO during other related clerkships was evaluated in this study. At a single institution, the RO clerkship director partnered with clerkship directors in medical oncology, palliative care, and radiology so that every 3rd or 4th year student would spend 1 day in RO during those clerkships. Afterwards, students completed an electronic survey containing multiple choice and 5-point Likert-type questions describing their experience. Descriptive statistics are reported. Ninety-seven students completed the RO microclerkship over 2 years, and 81 completed the survey (response rate 84%). Only 8 students (10%) had ever been in a RO department previously. During the microclerkship, 73 students (90%) saw at least one new patient consultation; 77 (95%) were involved in contouring or treatment planning; 76 (94%) saw treatment delivery; and 38 (47%) saw a brachytherapy procedure. Seventy-nine students (98%) felt that the microclerkship was at least moderately valuable (mean Likert-type rating 4.01, SD 0.73). Forty students (49%) were either somewhat or much more interested in participating in a longer (2-4 week) rotation in radiation oncology (mean Likert-type rating 3.59, SD 0.83). This study demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating a 1-day RO microclerkship into other related elective clerkships. Students viewed the experience favorably and found it valuable in their education.

Pilot Study Evaluating Cross-Disciplinary Educational Material to Improve Patients' Knowledge of Palliative Radiation Therapy.

Palliative radiation therapy (PRT) is underutilized, partially due to misconceptions about its risks, benefits, and indications. The objective of this pilot study was to determine if patients with metastatic cancer would gain knowledge from educational material describing PRT and perceive it as useful in their care. A one-page handout conveying information about the purpose, logistics, benefits, risks, and common indications for PRT was offered to patients undergoing treatment for incurable, metastatic solid tumors in one palliative care clinic and four medical oncology clinics. Participants read the handout, then completed a questionnaire assessing its perceived value. Seventy patients participated between June and December 2021. Sixty-five patients (93%) felt they learned from the handout (40% learned "lots"), and 69 (99%) felt the information was useful (53% "very useful"). Twenty-one patients (30%) were previously unaware that PRT can relieve symptoms, 55 (79%) were unaware that PRT can be delivered in five treatments or less, and 43 (61%) were unaware that PRT usually has few side effects. Sixteen patients (23%) felt they currently had symptoms not being treated well enough, and 34 (49%) felt they had symptoms that radiation might help with. Afterwards, most patients felt more comfortable bringing symptoms to a medical oncologist's (n = 57, 78%) or radiation oncologist's (n = 51, 70%) attention. Patient-directed educational material about PRT, provided outside of a radiation oncology department, was perceived by patients as improving their knowledge and adding value in their care, independent of prior exposure to a radiation oncologist.

Predictors of Interest in Radiation Oncology: The Effect of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, and Other Diversity Measures.

Purpose: The presence of women and people underrepresented in medicine (URiM) continues to be lower in radiation oncology (RO) than within the United States population, medical school graduates, and oncology fellowship applicants. The objective of this study was to identify demographics of matriculating medical students who are inclined to consider pursuing a residency in RO and identify barriers to entry that students may perceive before medical school training. Methods and Materials: A survey of incoming medical students at New York Medical College was distributed via e-mail and assessed demographic background information, interest in and awareness of oncologic subspecialties, and perceived barriers to RO. Results: Students of the incoming class of 2026 had a complete response rate of 72% (155 complete responses and 8 incomplete responses of 214 class members). Two-thirds of participants had prior awareness of RO, and half have considered pursuing an oncologic subspecialty, but less than one-fourth have ever previously considered a career in RO. Students responded that they need more education, clinical exposure, and mentorship to increase their chance of choosing RO. Male participants had 3.4 times the odds of having an acquaintance in the community tell them about the specialty and also had significantly greater interest in using advanced technologies. There were no URiM participants who had personal relationships with an RO physician compared with 6 (4.5%) non-URiM participants. The average response to "What is the likelihood that you will pursue a career in RO?" showed no significant difference between genders. Conclusions: All races and ethnicities scored a similar likelihood of pursuing a career in RO, which differs greatly from the current RO workforce. Responses emphasized the importance of education, mentorship, and exposure to RO. This study demonstrates the need for support of female and URiM students during medical school.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology Workforce Taskforce Review of the United States Radiation Oncology Workforce Analysis.

Over the past decade, concerns have arisen in radiation oncology regarding potential workforce supply and demand imbalance. The American Society for Radiation Oncology commissioned an independent analysis in 2022, looking at supply and demand in the United States radiation oncology workforce and projecting future trends for 2025 and 2030. The final report, titled Projected Supply and Demand for Radiation Oncologists in the U.S. in 2025 and 2030, is now available. The analysis included evaluating radiation oncologist (RO) supply (new graduates, exits from the specialty), potential changes in demand (growth of Medicare beneficiaries, hypofractionation, loss of indications, new indications) as well as RO productivity (growth of work relative value units [wRVUs] produced), and demand per beneficiary. The results demonstrated a relative balance between radiation oncology supply and demand for radiation services; the growth in ROs was balanced by the rapid growth of Medicare beneficiaries over the same period. The primary factors driving the model were found to be growth of Medicare beneficiaries and change in wRVU productivity, with hypofractionation and loss of indication having only a moderate effect; although the most likely scenario was a balance of workforce supply and demand, scenarios did demonstrate the possibility of over- and undersupply. Oversupply may become a concern if RO wRVU productivity reaches the highest region; beyond 2030, this is also possible if growth in RO supply does not parallel Medicare beneficiary growth, which is projected to decline and will require corresponding supply adjustment. Limitations of the analysis included uncertainty regarding the true number of ROs, the lack of inclusion of most technical reimbursement and its effect as well as failing to account for stereotactic body radiation therapy. A modeling tool is available to allow individuals to evaluate different scenarios. Moving forward, continued study will be needed to evaluate trends (particularly wRVU productivity and Medicare beneficiary growth) to allow for continued assessment of workforce supply and demand in radiation oncology.

Pilot Study Exploring the Feasibility of Incorporating Radiation Oncology Into Pre-existing Early Pathway Programs for Diverse Premedical Students.

PURPOSE: Many medical schools in the United States have affiliated pathway, preparatory, and/or prematriculation programs that enroll a high percentage of students historically underrepresented in medicine (URiM). The purpose of this pilot study was to better characterize exposures to radiation oncology (RO) among students in these programs and determine the feasibility of incorporating a radiation oncologist within their pre-existing format if nonexistent. METHODS AND MATERIALS: During the summers of 2021 and 2022, a radiation oncologist gave a presentation about basic principles of cancer care to 18 unique student groups in 12 premedical programs affiliated with 8 medical schools. Participating students were asked to complete an anonymous postpresentation questionnaire. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: A total of 467 students attended the presentations, and 241 completed the questionnaire (response rate 52.0%). The majority of participants reported being female (63.5%), URiM (66.4%), and low income (57.3%). Students were less likely to report previous teaching from a radiation oncologist (11.2%) than a surgical (17.0%) or medical oncologist (18.3%). Prior clinical shadowing with a radiation oncologist (2.9%) was also less likely than shadowing a surgical oncologist (5.0%), medical oncologist (6.6%), or any other physician (53.1%). Students were also less likely to previously believe that radiation could cure cancer (65.8%) compared with surgery (74.9%) or chemotherapy (89.3%). After the presentation, 168 students (69.7%) were more interested in a career in RO, and 211 students (87.6%) responded that the presentation was either quite or extremely valuable (median Likert-type score, 5; interquartile range, 4-5). CONCLUSIONS: Many of the students in premedical programs lack prior exposure to RO or knowledge of multidisciplinary cancer care, which was ameliorated by a simple yet effective presentation across a variety of different types of programs in this study. Longitudinal assessment of different types of educational initiatives and students' ultimate career trajectory will help optimize future RO initiatives among premedical URiM students.

Pilot Study Demonstrating the Value of Interdisciplinary Education on the Integration of Radiation Therapy in Lung Cancer Management.

This study aimed to understand baseline knowledge of basic principles of radiation therapy for lung cancer among medical oncology, thoracic surgery, and pulmonology trainees and practicing physicians and also assess whether a didactic lecture will improve objective knowledge and perceived comfort level in making appropriate referrals to radiation oncology (RO). Radiation oncologists at 8 academic institutions offered a presentation covering indications, logistics, efficacy, and toxicity of thoracic radiation. Participants completed a survey to assess their prior exposures to RO and perceived value of the lecture, and objective knowledge gained based on pre/post-lecture questions. Among 121 attendees, 76 completed the pre-test, and 25 the post-test (response rates 62.8% and 20.7%, respectively). Fifty-seven (75.0%) had never previously experienced a RO didactic about lung cancer, 62 (81.6%) had never seen a linear accelerator, and 65 (85.5%) had never rotated in a RO department. The mean pre-test score was 53.5% (SD 17.6%), with a trend (p = 0.066) towards thoracic surgeons (61.5%) performing better than medical oncologists (55.5%) or pulmonologists (48.3%). Level of training (p = 0.130), and prior RO exposures (p = 0.240), did not significantly impact pre-test scores. The mean post-test score of 75.1% (SD 3.6%) was significantly higher than mean pre-test score (p < 0.001). After the lecture, 25 participants (100%) felt more knowledgeable about RO, and 24 (96%) felt more comfortable making appropriate referrals to RO. A didactic lecture about RO for trainees and physicians who treat lung cancer at 8 academic institutions was feasible, filled a gap in exposure, and improved knowledge.

The Current State of Departmental Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts Within US Academic Radiation Oncology Departments.

PURPOSE: Promoting a diverse workforce of health care professionals that delivers equitable patient care is an important goal in oncology, as in all of medicine. Although most medical schools have a diversity office and associated initiatives, little is known about radiation oncology (RO) department-level efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). We describe the current state of DEI leadership and initiatives in RO departments in the US to guide future policies and programs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 124 US RO departments affiliated with a medical school were contacted to identify departmental DEI leadership. Identified DEI leaders were asked to complete an anonymous survey assessing characteristics of their departmental DEI leadership, committee/organizational structure, activities, and perceived barriers to, and effect of, their work. Descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: Among 85 RO departments that responded (68.5% response rate), 48 (56.5%) reported having a departmental DEI leader. Thirty-four DEI leaders completed the survey (70.8%). Of those who answered each survey question, most DEI leaders were assistant or associate professors (n = 24, 82.8%), women (n = 19, 73.1%), and identified with at least one non-White race or Hispanic ethnicity (n = 15, 53.6%). Nineteen (57.6%) had an associated departmental DEI committee; with 10 of these starting in 2020 or later. Few DEI leaders had administrative support (38.2%), funding (29.4%), protected time (23.5%), or increased compensation for added duties Fifteen (50.0%) believed their DEI-focused efforts were considered for promotion. The most reported initiatives included offering programming/education, supporting students from backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, improving recruitment practices/hiring, and implementing pipeline/pathway projects. The perceived impact of DEI initiatives included an increased culture of respect (89.7%), improved health care disparity awareness (75.9%), and improved systemic/structural racism awareness (79.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Departmental DEI efforts are increasingly common within RO, however, the structure, resources, and recognition associated with DEI work are variable. Additional dedicated resources and recognition for these efforts will help ensure a culture of inclusive excellence for the RO workforce and patients.

Impact of a Virtual Introduction to Radiation Oncology Presentation on Stimulating Interest in the Specialty Among Diverse Medical Students at Multiple Institutions.

PURPOSE: Many US medical students lack access to radiation oncology (RO). The authors' hypothesis was that a virtual, cross-institutional presentation introducing students to a career in RO would be valuable in exposing students to RO who are less likely to access it otherwise and would increase students' interest in a career in RO regardless of their gender, race, or ethnicity. METHODS: A 1-hour, live, virtual, extracurricular presentation was offered to deans of US medical schools lacking affiliated RO departments and/or having high enrollments of students underrepresented in medicine (UIM) and also student groups composed primarily of UIM students. Presentations were given individually to each school by a single radiation oncologist. An electronic survey captured data from participating students. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-seven students from 13 institutions attended presentations; 114 students responded to the survey (response rate, 58%). Ninety-two students (81%) were aware of the specialty of RO before the presentation; however, UIM students were significantly less likely to be aware of RO than all others (69% versus 87%, P = .05). Only 19 students (17%) reported previously hearing presentations from radiation oncologist (29% among second- to fourth-year students versus 9% among first-year students, P = .01). Ninety-eight students (86%) expressed more interest in pursuing a career in RO after the presentation. There was no significant difference in interest in RO for any demographic subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual RO exposure was feasible to deliver to students less likely to be exposed otherwise and successfully stimulated interest in the specialty regardless of students' gender, race, or ethnicity.