A Call for Reform: Variability and Insufficiency in Radiation Oncology Resident Didactics-a Brief Report and National Survey of Program Directors.

An informal needs assessment and lack of a national standardized curriculum suggest that there is tremendous variability in the formal teaching of radiation oncology resident throughout the USA. The goal of this study was to characterize formal radiation oncology resident education, in order to identify knowledge gaps and areas for improvement. We developed a 14-item survey consisting of the following domains: program characteristics, teaching faculty, formal teaching time, instructional approaches for formal teaching, curricular topics, and satisfaction with didactics. All 91 accredited US-based radiation oncology program directors received an invitation to complete the survey anonymously by email. Twenty-four (26% response rate) program directors responded. Programs used a variety of instructional methods; all programs reported using lecture-based teaching and only a minority using simulation (38%) or flipped classroom techniques (17%). Other than PowerPoint, the most common electronic resource utilized was quizzing/polling (67%), webinar (33%), and econtour.org (13%). The lack of a national, standardized, radiation oncology residency didactic curriculum promotes variability and insufficiency in resident training. Themes for improvement were diversity in didactic topics, incorporation of evidence-based teaching practices, increased faculty involvement, and sharing of resources across programs. Development of a national curriculum and increased electronic resource sharing may help address some of these areas of improvement.

Adapting a Medical School Cancer Research Education Program to the Virtual Environment: a Mixed-Methods Study.

With cancer incidence increasing worldwide, physicians with cancer research training are needed. The Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) cancer research education program was developed to train medical students in cancer research while exposing them to the breadth of clinical oncology. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SOAR transitioned from in-person in 2019 to virtual in 2020 and hybrid in 2021. This study investigates positive and negative aspects of the varying educational formats. A mixed-methods approach was used to evaluate the educational formats. Pre- and post-surveys were collected from participants to assess their understanding of cancer as a clinical and research discipline. Structured interviews were conducted across all three cohorts, and thematic analysis was used to generate themes. A total of 37 students participated in SOAR and completed surveys (2019 n = 11, 2020 n = 14, and 2021 n = 12), and 18 interviews were conducted. Understanding of oncology as a clinical (p < 0.01 for all) and research discipline (p < 0.01 for all) improved within all three cohorts. There was no difference between each cohort's improvement in research understanding (p = 0.6). There was no difference between each cohort's understanding of oncology-related disciplines as both clinical and research disciplines (p > 0.1 for all). Thematic analysis demonstrated that hybrid and in-person formats were favored over a completely virtual one. Our findings demonstrate that a medical student cancer research education program is effective using in-person or hybrid formats for research education, although virtual experiences may be suboptimal to learning about clinical oncology.

Exploring the Perceived Educational Impact of COVID-19 on Postgraduate Training in Oncology.

This study sought to report the degree to which postgraduate trainees in radiation oncology perceive their education has been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A cross-sectional online survey was administered from June to July 2020 to trainee members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncology (CARO) (n = 203). Thirty-four trainees responded with a 17% response rate. Just under half of participants indicated that COVID-19 had a negative/very negative impact on training (n = 15; 46%). The majority agreed/strongly agreed that they feared family/loved ones would contract COVID-19 (n = 29, 88%), felt socially isolated from friends and family because of COVID-19 (n = 23, 70%), and had difficulty concentrating on tasks because of concerns about COVID-19 (n = 17, 52%). Changes that had a negative/very negative impact on learning included limitations to travel and networking (n = 31; 91%) and limited patient contact (n = 19; 58%). Virtual follow-ups (n = 25: 76%) and in-patient care activities (n = 12; 36%) increased. Electives were cancelled in province (n = 10; 30%), out-of-province (n = 16; 49%), and internationally (n = 15; 46%). Teaching from staff was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 23, 70%) and teaching to medical students was moderately reduced to completely suppressed (n = 27, 82%). Significant changes to radiation oncology training were wrought by the pandemic, and roughly half of trainees perceive that these changes had a negative impact on training. Innovations in training delivery are needed to adapt to these new changes.

Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Annual Spring Symposium: Initial Impact and Feedback.

The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) is an international collaborative network of radiation oncology (RO) professionals with the goal of improving RO education. This report summarizes the first two ROECSG annual symposia including an overview of presentations and analysis of participant feedback. One-day symposia were held in June 2018 and May 2019. Programs included oral and poster presentations, RO education leadership perspectives, and keynote addresses. Post-symposia surveys were collected. Research presentations were recorded and made available online. The 2018 symposium was had 36 attendees from 25 institutions in three countries. The 2019 symposium had 76 individuals from 41 institutions in five countries. Attendees represented diverse backgrounds including attending physicians (46%), residents (13%), medical students (14%), physicists (2%), nurses (1%), and program coordinators (1%). Fifty-five oral presentations were given with 53 released online. Ninety percent of attendees rated the symposium as improving their knowledge of RO educational scholarship, 98% felt the symposium provided the opportunity to receive feedback on RO education scholarship, and 99% felt that the symposium fostered the development of collaborative RO education projects. ROECSG was rated higher than professional organizations in fostering educational scholarship (p<0.001). All attendees felt that the symposium produced new RO education scholarship ideas and provided unique networking opportunities. The first two ROECSG symposia drew a diverse population of attendees and provided unique opportunities for presentation of RO education scholarship. Future ROECSG symposia will be designed to enhance opportunities to present RO education scholarship and to facilitate networking.

A prospective clinical and transcriptomic feasibility study of oral-only hormonal therapy with radiation for unfavorable prostate cancer in men 70 years of age and older or with comorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves outcomes in unfavorable-risk prostate cancer (PCa) treated with radiation therapy (RT). It was hypothesized that replacing luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists with a 5-α-reductase inhibitor (5-ARI) would improve hormonal health-related quality of life (HRQOL) without differentially suppressing androgen-responsive (AR) gene expression. METHODS: Patients with localized unfavorable-risk PCa, aged ≥70 years or Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥2 were treated with oral ADT (oADT), consisting of 4 months of bicalutamide, a 5-ARI, and RT at 78 Gy. The primary end point was Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite HRQOL at 6 months ≤30%, and improvement compared with a synchronous standard of care (SOC) cohort receiving 4 months of bicalutamide and long-term LHRH agonist with RT. RNA sequencing was performed from matched pre-/post-ADT prostate tumor biopsies in a subset of men. Differential gene and pathway expressional changes were examined using gene set enrichment. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 40 and 30 men were enrolled in the oADT and SOC cohorts, respectively. Median follow-up was 40 months. Those with ≤30% decline in hormonal HRQOL at 6 months was 97% (oADT) and 93% (SOC). The average 6-month hormonal decline was 1% (oADT) versus 12% (SOC; P = .04). The 4-year freedom from biochemical failure was 88% (oADT) versus 81% (SOC; P = .48). RNA sequencing (n = 9) showed similar numbers of downregulated and upregulated genes between the treatment groups (fold-change = 2; false-discovery rate-adjusted P ≤ .05). Both treatments comparably decreased the expression of 20 genes in canonical androgen receptor signaling. CONCLUSIONS: For men with PCa undergoing RT, oral versus standard ADT may improve 6-month QOL and appears to have a similar impact on androgen-responsive gene expression.

Goals of care discussions: perceptions of radiation and medical oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care discussions (GOCD) are essential when counseling patients with cancer. Respective roles of radiation oncologists (RO) and medical oncologists (MO) in GOCD can be unclear. This study aims to clarify the dynamics and barriers to GOCD. METHODS: Five hundred and fifty-four ROs and 1604 MOs at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers were sent an anonymous electronic survey regarding demographics, opinions, training in GOCD, GOCD frequency, and three vignettes. Response formats were Yes/No, Likert-type, and free response. Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were performed. Likert-type scores were reported as median [interquartile range]. RESULTS: There were 76 (13.7%) RO and 153 (9.5%) MO who completed surveys. Sixty-three percent of RO and 66% of MO reported GOCD with > 50% of patients (p = 0.90). GOCD were initiated for declining performance status (74%) and poor life expectancy (69%). More MO (42%) received formal GOCD training compared to RO (18%) (p < 0.01). MO were more comfortable conducting GOCD than RO (p < 0.01). RO-conducted GOCD were rated to be less important by MO compared to RO (p < 0.05). Thirty-six percent of MO reported being "not at all" or "somewhat" comfortable with RO-conducted GOCD. RO-initiated GOCD with new patients were rated less appropriate by RO compared to MO perceptions of RO-initiated GOCD (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: While MO and RO conduct GOCD with similar frequency, MO are more comfortable conducting GOCD and are more likely to have formal training. MO rate importance of RO involvement lower than RO. Further research is needed to understand interdisciplinary dynamics that may impact GOCD and subsequent patient care outcomes.

The use of complementary and integrative therapies as adjunct interventions during radiotherapy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Literature supporting the efficacy of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) alongside radiotherapy is fragmented with varying outcomes and levels of evidence. This review summarizes the available evidence on CIM used with radiotherapy in order to inform clinicians. METHODS: A systematic literature review identified studies on the use of CIM during radiotherapy. Inclusion required the following criteria: the study was interventional, CIM therapy was for human patients with cancer, and CIM therapy was administered concurrently with radiotherapy. Data points of interest were collected from included studies. A subset was identified as high-quality using the Jadad scale. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the association between study results, outcome measured, and type of CIM. RESULTS: Overall, 163 articles met inclusion. Of these, 68 (41.7%) were considered high-quality trials. Articles published per year increased over time (p < 0.01). Frequently identified therapies were biologically based therapies (47.9%), mind-body therapies (23.3%), and alternative medical systems (13.5%). Within the subset of high-quality trials, 60.0% of studies reported a favorable change with CIM while 40.0% reported no change. No studies reported an unfavorable change. Commonly assessed outcome types were patient-reported (41.1%) and provider-reported (21.5%). Rate of favorable change did not differ based on type of CIM (p = 0.90) or outcome measured (p = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent CIM may reduce radiotherapy-induced toxicities and improve quality of life, suggesting that physicians should discuss CIM with patients receiving radiotherapy. This review provides a broad overview of investigations on CIM use during radiotherapy and can inform how radiation oncologists advise their patients about CIM.

Comfort Level of US Radiation Oncology Graduates: Assessment of Transition to Independent Clinical Practice.

Radiation training programs are designed to prepare graduates for independent practice, with metrics in place to assess appropriateness of clinical decision-making. Here, we investigated the self-assessed preparedness of US graduates during the transition to independent practice.An anonymous, Internet-based survey was distributed to recent graduates of radiation oncology residencies (2016-2017). A Likert scale was used to assess comfort with various aspects of practice, as well as "time" to development of comfort in independent practice.Responses were obtained from 70/210 (33%), the majority reported training in programs with 5-8 residents (n = 35). Most (77%) reported designing between 500 and 900 treatment plans during training (n = 54). Only 41% of respondents reported the opportunity to review treatment plans and make decisions about safety/adequacy without attending input > 50% of the time (n = 29). Thirty percent of residents reported being responsible for seeing/managing on-treatment visits (OTVs) ≤ 75% of the time. Aspects with which practitioners reported the least comfort were understanding of billing/application to practice (2.43, IQR 2-3), orthovoltage (superficial radiation) setup and field design (2.57, IQR 1-4), and planning/delivery of prostate implants (2.82, IQR 2-4). Increased mean comfort levels were reported by those designing > 700 treatment plans in training as well as those reporting an opportunity to evaluate plans and make clinical decisions prior to attending input > 50% of the time during residency. Comfort with the delivery of stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) correlated with caseload for liver, spine, prostate, and CNS disease sites but not lung.Variations in training experiences exist across institutions. Here, a lower than expected number of residents reported seeing/managing OTVs as well as reviewing treatment plans prior to attending input during training. Overall comfort was correlated with case volume and opportunities to independently review treatment plans prior to attending input. These data highlight areas of opportunity for improving resident education with implications for ease of transition to independent clinical practice.

Digital Professionalism in Patient Care: A Case-Based Survey of Surgery Faculty and Trainees.

BACKGROUND: Use of digital devices have become ubiquitous in healthcare and can create professionalism issues. This study presents opinions of faculty, residents, and medical students to inform policy on the appropriate use of digital devices in the patient care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was administered from September 2018 to October 2018 to faculty and residents within the general surgery department at a large academic medical center and all fourth-year medical students at an affiliated university. The survey included direct statements and case-based scenarios on similar themes to triangulate responses. RESULTS: There were 114 participants in the survey-50 faculty, 26 residents, and 38 medical students. Digital device utilization was equivalent among all groups, and all participants use a smartphone. Digital devices were most frequently used during rounds and clinical conferences. Overall, digital device use was found more appropriate when seen in the case-based format rather than as a direct statement. Furthermore, use of these devices was seen as most appropriate when the provider explained its use or left the room to use the device. CONCLUSIONS: Digital devices are used by faculty and trainees at similar rates for parallel purposes, and the benefits for patient-related care are evident. However, the use of digital devices in the presence of patients should be minimized and always preceded by an explanation. These findings can inform institutional policy when creating guidelines on the professional use of these devices in the patient care setting.

Physician review of image registration and normal structure delineation.

INTRODUCTION: Image registration and delineation of organs at risk (OARs) are key components of three-dimensional conformal (3DCRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) treatment planning. This study hypothesized that image registration and OAR delineation are often performed by medical physicists and/or dosimetrists and are not routinely reviewed by treating physicians. METHODS: An anonymous, internet-based survey of medical physicists and dosimetrists was distributed via the MEDPHYS and MEDDOS listserv groups. Participants were asked to characterize standard practices for completion and review of OAR contouring, target volume contouring, and image registration at their institution along with their personal training in these areas and level of comfort performing these tasks. Likert-type scales are reported as Median [Interquartile range] with scores ranging from 1 = "Extremely/All of the time" to 5 = "Not at all/Never." RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-seven individuals responded to the survey. Overall, respondents indicated significantly less frequent physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3]), and less confidence in the thoroughness of physician review (3 [2-4] vs 2 [1-3], P < 0.01) of OAR contours compared to image registration. Only 19% (95% CI 14-24%) of respondents reported a formal process by which OAR volumes are reviewed by physicians in their clinic. The presence of a formal review process was also associated with significantly higher perceived thoroughness of review of OAR volumes compared to clinics with no formal review process (2 [2-3] vs 3 [2-4], P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite the critical role of OAR delineation and image registration in the 3DCRT and IMRT treatment planning process, physician review of these tasks is not always optimal. Radiotherapy clinics should consider implementation of formal processes to promote adequate physician review of OARs and image registrations to ensure the quality and safety of radiotherapy treatment plans.

Three-dimensional printing in radiation oncology: A systematic review of the literature.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: Three-dimensional (3D) printing is recognized as an effective clinical and educational tool in procedurally intensive specialties. However, it has a nascent role in radiation oncology. The goal of this investigation is to clarify the extent to which 3D printing applications are currently being used in radiation oncology through a systematic review of the literature. MATERIALS/METHODS: A search protocol was defined according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Included articles were evaluated using parameters of interest including: year and country of publication, experimental design, sample size for clinical studies, radiation oncology topic, reported outcomes, and implementation barriers or safety concerns. RESULTS: One hundred and three publications from 2012 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described 3D printing applications included quality assurance phantoms (26%), brachytherapy applicators (20%), bolus (17%), preclinical animal irradiation (10%), compensators (7%), and immobilization devices (5%). Most studies were preclinical feasibility studies (63%), with few clinical investigations such as case reports or series (13%) or cohort studies (11%). The most common applications evaluated within clinical settings included brachytherapy applicators (44%) and bolus (28%). Sample sizes for clinical investigations were small (median 10, range 1-42). A minority of articles described basic or translational research (11%) and workflow or cost evaluation studies (3%). The number of articles increased over time (P < 0.0001). While outcomes were heterogeneous, most studies reported successful implementation of accurate and cost-effective 3D printing methods. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional printing is rapidly growing in radiation oncology and has been implemented effectively in a diverse array of applications. Although the number of 3D printing publications has steadily risen, the majority of current reports are preclinical in nature and the few clinical studies that do exist report on small sample sizes. Further dissemination of ongoing investigations describing the clinical application of developed 3D printing technologies in larger cohorts is warranted.

Student Perspectives on Oncology Curricula at United States Medical Schools.

Delivering a cohesive oncology curriculum to medical students is challenging due to oncology's multidisciplinary nature, predominantly outpatient clinical setting, and lack of data describing effective approaches to teaching it. We sought to better characterize approaches to oncology education at US medical schools by surveying third and fourth year medical students who serve on their institution's curriculum committee. We received responses from students at 19 schools (15.2% response rate). Key findings included the following: (1) an under-emphasis of cancer in the curriculum relative to other common diseases; (2) imbalanced involvement of different clinical subspecialists as educators; (3) infrequent requirements for students to rotate through non-surgical oncologic clerkships; and (4) students are less confident in their knowledge of cancer treatment compared to basic science/natural history or workup/diagnosis. Based on these findings, we provide several recommendations to achieve robust multidisciplinary curriculum design and implementation that better balances the clinical and classroom aspects of oncology education.

Implementation of a Novel Medical School Multidisciplinary and Interprofessional Oncology Curriculum: a Mixed Method Study.

As the population of patients with cancer and survivors grows, physician knowledge of oncology clinical care and research is increasingly important. Despite this patient population growth, medical students and non-oncology physicians report insufficient oncologic and survivorship care training. First-year students at a single US medical school completing a summer research experience were invited to participate in integrated Scholars in Oncology-Associated Research (SOAR) program. SOAR seeks to broaden students' understanding of multidisciplinary and interprofessional oncology clinical care and research. SOAR consists of three components: structured didactics, multidisciplinary tumor board attendance, and interprofessional shadowing. A mixed-methods approach investigated whether student knowledge improved after SOAR. Thirty-three students enrolled in SOAR (20 in 2015, 13 in 2016) and completed pre-assessments. Twenty-five (75.8%) students completed SOAR and post-assessments. Self-reported understanding of clinical (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) and research oncology (2[2, 3] vs. 4[4], p < 0.01) improved after SOAR. Understanding of individual disciplines also significantly improved. When describing clinical oncology, responses written post-SOAR were more comprehensive, averaging 3.7 themes per response vs. 2.8 on pre-assessments (p = 0.03). There were more references to "survivorship" as a component of oncology on post-assessments (0[0.0%] vs. 7[28.0%], p < 0.01) and "screening/prevention" (2[6.1%] vs. 7[28.0%], p = 0.03). Additionally, students more often described cancer care as a continuum on post-assessments (4[12.1%] vs. 11[44.0%], p = 0.01). A structured didactic and experiential introduction to oncology, SOAR, was successfully piloted. SOAR improved participant understanding of oncology and its distinct clinical and research disciplines. Future work will focus on expanding SOAR into a longitudinal oncology curriculum.

Interdisciplinary Oncology Education: a National Survey of Trainees and Program Directors in the United States.

Oncologists must have a strong understanding of collaborating specialties in order to deliver optimal cancer care. The objective of this study was to quantify current interdisciplinary oncology education among oncology training programs across the USA, identify effective teaching modalities, and assess communication skills training. Web-based surveys were sent to oncology trainees and program directors (PDs) across the USA on April 1, 2013 and October 8, 2013, respectively. Question responses were Yes/No, five-point Likert scales (1 = not at all, 2 = somewhat, 3 = moderately, 4 = quite, 5 = extremely), or free response. Respondents included the following (trainees/PDs): 254/55 medical oncology, 160/42 surgical oncology, 102/24 radiation oncology, and 41/20 hospice and palliative medicine (HPM). Trainees consistently reported lower rates of interdisciplinary education for each specialty compared with PDs as follows: medical oncology 57 vs. 77% (p < 0.01), surgical oncology 30 vs. 44% (p < 0.01), radiation oncology 70 vs. 89% (p < 0.01), geriatric oncology 19 vs. 30% (p < 0.01), and HPM 55 vs. 74% (p < 0.01). The predominant teaching method used (lectures vs. rotations vs. tumor board attendance vs. workshop vs. other) varied according to which discipline was being taught. The usefulness of each teaching method was rated statistically different by trainees for learning about select disciplines. Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found between PDs and trainees for the perceived usefulness of several teaching modalities. This study highlights a deficiency of interdisciplinary education among oncology training programs in the USA. Efforts to increase interdisciplinary education opportunities during training may ultimately translate into improved collaboration and quality of cancer care.

RIG-I-like receptor LGP2 protects tumor cells from ionizing radiation.

An siRNA screen targeting 89 IFN stimulated genes in 14 different cancer cell lines pointed to the RIG-I (retinoic acid inducible gene I)-like receptor Laboratory of Genetics and Physiology 2 (LGP2) as playing a key role in conferring tumor cell survival following cytotoxic stress induced by ionizing radiation (IR). Studies on the role of LGP2 revealed the following: (i) Depletion of LGP2 in three cancer cell lines resulted in a significant increase in cell death following IR, (ii) ectopic expression of LGP2 in cells increased resistance to IR, and (iii) IR enhanced LGP2 expression in three cell lines tested. Studies designed to define the mechanism by which LGP2 acts point to its role in regulation of IFNß. Specifically (i) suppression of LGP2 leads to enhanced IFNß, (ii) cytotoxic effects following IR correlated with expression of IFNß inasmuch as inhibition of IFNß by neutralizing antibody conferred resistance to cell death, and (iii) mouse embryonic fibroblasts from IFN receptor 1 knockout mice are radioresistant compared with wild-type mouse embryonic fibroblasts. The role of LGP2 in cancer may be inferred from cumulative data showing elevated levels of LGP2 in cancer cells are associated with more adverse clinical outcomes. Our results indicate that cytotoxic stress exemplified by IR induces IFNß and enhances the expression of LGP2. Enhanced expression of LGP2 suppresses the IFN stimulated genes associated with cytotoxic stress by turning off the expression of IFNß.

Medical Student Knowledge of Oncology and Related Disciplines: a Targeted Needs Assessment.

Despite increasing numbers of cancer survivors, non-oncology physicians report discomfort and little training regarding oncologic and survivorship care. This pilot study assesses medical student comfort with medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, hospice/palliative medicine, and survivorship care. A survey was developed with input from specialists in various fields of oncologic care at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. The survey included respondent demographics, reports of experience with oncology, comfort ratings with oncologic care, and five clinical vignettes. Responses were yes/no, multiple choice, Likert scale, or free response. The survey was distributed via email to medical students (MS1-4) at two US medical schools. The 105 respondents were 34 MS1s (32 %), 15 MS2s and MD/PhDs (14 %), 26 MS3s (25 %), and 30 MS4s (29 %). Medical oncology, surgical oncology, and hospice/palliative medicine demonstrated a significant trend for increased comfort from MS1 to MS4, but radiation oncology and survivorship care did not. MS3s and MS4s reported the least experience with survivorship care and radiation oncology. In the clinical vignettes, students performed the worst on the long-term chemotherapy toxicity and hospice/palliative medicine questions. Medical students report learning about components of oncologic care, but lack overall comfort with oncologic care. Medical students also fail to develop an increased self-assessed level of comfort with radiation oncology and survivorship care. These pilot results support development of a formalized multidisciplinary medical school oncology curriculum at these two institutions. An expanded national survey is being developed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Assessing the Landscape in Medical Education Literature in Medical Oncology: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: Medical oncology and medical education (ME) have both expanded exponentially over the past 50 years; thus, it is important to understand the current status of postgraduate medical oncology education and develop ways to advance this field. This study undertakes a scoping review of ME literature in medical oncology to inform future scholarship in this area. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, and Web of Science were searched to find peer-reviewed English language articles on postgraduate ME in medical oncology published from 2009 to 2020. Established scoping review methodologies were used in study design; articles were classified by specialty, learner training level, region of authorship, institution type, year of publication, journal type, study methodology, and research topic. Curriculum intervention, scholarship, and domain(s) of physician competency were also assessed. The results were interpreted using descriptive statistics and collated using predetermined conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: A total of 2,959 references were initially found across four databases. After title and abstract screening, 305 articles remained; after full-text review, 144 articles were included in final analysis. Postgraduate medical oncology education research is increasing, with the majority of articles published in North America. Quantitative studies were most common, primarily survey approaches. For physician competencies, professionalism and medical expertise comprised the large majority of article focuses, whereas very few articles addressed leadership or health advocacy. Curriculum development, professional development, and communication skills were dominant research themes while no articles discussed teacher training. CONCLUSION: Although areas such as professionalism and communication skills are well-studied, medical oncology ME research is lacking in leadership, health advocacy, and teacher training. This study provides valuable guidance for future ME research in medical oncology and establishes a benchmark to examine changes in educational scholarship over time.

Patient Education Practices and Preferences of Radiation Oncologists and Interprofessional Radiation Therapy Care Teams: A Mixed-Methods Study Exploring Strategies for Effective Patient Education Delivery.

PURPOSE: Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P < .01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P < .01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery.

Spanish Adaptation and Evaluation of Clinical Discussion Guides: Communicating the External Beam Radiotherapy Experience (CEBRE) en Español.

PURPOSE: Cancer is the leading cause of death for the Hispanic/Latinx United States (US) community, which comprises 64% of the US population with limited English proficiency. Despite the common use of radiation therapy for cancer treatment, there is a dearth of radiation therapy educational materials-at appropriate reading levels-available in Spanish. To address the gap in patient-centered educational resources for communicating with Spanish-speaking patients about radiation therapy, we sought to linguistically and culturally adapt the Communicating the External Beam Radiotherapy Experience (CEBRE) clinical discussion guide series into Spanish. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From January to December 2021, we developed and applied a stepwise methodology for Spanish adaptation of the discussion guides involving (1) professional translation; (2) interprofessional review for linguistic and cultural appropriateness and medical accuracy; (3) design review; and (4) evaluation for readability, understandability, and actionability using validated tools. We applied 4 indices for readability evaluation: Gilliam-Peña-Mountain, Läsbarhetsindex, Rate Index, and the Spanish Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Two trained reviewers assessed understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool. RESULTS: After 2 revision rounds, 4 CEBRE en español discussion guides were produced through an interprofessional, iterative translation and linguistic/cultural adaptation process. Readability scores across the 4 guides ranged from 4.3 to 7.3 grade-level equivalents, thereby meeting the American Medical Association's 8th-grade standard. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool analysis yielded near-perfect scores along understandability and actionability domains. CONCLUSIONS: The stepwise linguistic/cultural adaptation process yielded a patient-centered guide that is appropriately readable, understandable, and actionable for Spanish-speaking patients receiving radiation therapy in the US. Future work should include an external evaluation of CEBRE en español by clinicians and patients. The methodology described can be applied to adapting resources for patient-centered communication in other fields of medicine and into other languages as part of an interprofessional approach to delivering equitable health care for all.

Development of a United States Radiation Oncology Curricular Framework: A Stakeholder Delphi Consensus.

PURPOSE: A United States (US) radiation oncology curriculum, developed using best practices for curriculum inquiry, is needed to guide residency education and qualifying examinations. Competency-based training, including entrustable professional activities (EPAs), provides an outcomes-based approach to modern graduate medical education. This study aimed to define US radiation oncology EPAs and curricular content domains using a deliberative process with input from multiple stakeholder groups. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group Core Curriculum Project Leadership Committee developed initial content domains and EPAs. Following recruitment of stakeholders, a Delphi process was used to achieve consensus. In the first round, content domains and EPAs were reviewed for inclusion and exclusion, clarity, time allocation (content domains), and level of training (EPAs). Participants submitted additional content domains and EPAs for consideration. Any content domains or EPAs 1 standard deviation below the median for inclusion and exclusion underwent Leadership Committee review. All participants completing the first Delphi round were invited to the second round. Percent curriculum time allocated for content domains and a single subdomain were finalized. New EPAs or EPAs undergoing major revisions were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 186 participants representing diverse stakeholder groups participated. One hundred fourteen completed the first Delphi round (61.3%). Of 114 invited, 77 participants completed the second round of the Delphi process (67.5%). Overall, 6 of 9 content domains met consensus, 1 content domain was removed, and 2 content domains were combined. Four subdomains of a single content domain were reviewed and met consensus. Consensus on percent time allocated per content domain and subdomain was reached. Of 55 initial EPAs, 52 final EPAs met consensus. CONCLUSIONS: Deliberative curriculum inquiry was successfully used to develop a consensus on US radiation oncology content domains and EPAs. These data can guide the allocation of educational time in training programs, help inform weighting for qualifying examinations, and help guide clinical training and resident assessment.