Predictors of an Academic Career in Radiation Oncology 5 to 10 Years After Residency.

OBJECTIVE: To report the percentage of resident graduates in the modern era who establish careers in academic radiation oncology 5 to 10 years after residency. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 1147 radiation oncologists who completed residency between 2011 and 2017 and were practicing radiation oncologists in 2021. RESULTS: The percentage of 2011-2017 graduates with an academic career in 2021 (5 to 10 y after residency): Holman Pathway resident: Yes, 74% versus No, 43% ( P <0.05); PhD degree before residency: Yes, 67% versus No, 38% ( P <0.05), Doximity top-10 ranked residency program: Yes, 66% versus No, 37% ( P <0.05).Logistic regression multivariate analysis confirmed PhD and Doximity top-10 as strong independent predictors for all endpoints.Regarding gender, no significant differences were observed for all 4 endpoints in the percentage of women versus men establishing academic careers at the 5-year to 10-year post-residency time point. CONCLUSION: Since 2011, at least one-third (~35%) of radiation oncology residents have gone into academic medicine and are academically productive 5 to 10 years after residency. Holman Pathway, PhD degree, or Doximity top-10 residency program approximately doubles the probability of an academic career. Moreover, radiation oncology is on track to achieve gender equity in academic medicine.

Nationwide changes in radiation oncology travel and location of care before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus disease (COVID). Transportation barriers made travel to obtain medical care more difficult during the pandemic. Whether these factors led to changes in the distance traveled for radiotherapy and the coordinated location of radiation treatment is unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed patients across 60 cancer sites in the National Cancer Database from 2018 to 2020. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed for changes in distance traveled for radiotherapy. We designated the facilities in the 99th percentile or above in terms of the proportion of patients who traveled more than 200 miles as "destination facilities." We defined "coordinated care" as undergoing radiotherapy at the same facility where the cancer was diagnosed. RESULTS: We evaluated 1,151,954 patients. There was a greater than 1% decrease in the proportion of patients treated in the Mid-Atlantic States. Mean distance traveled from place of residence to radiation treatment decreased from 28.6 to 25.9 miles, and the proportion traveling greater than 50 miles decreased from 7.7% to 7.1%. At "destination facilities," the proportion traveling more than 200 miles decreased from 29.3% in 2018 to 24% in 2020. In comparison, at the other hospitals, the proportion traveling more than 200 miles decreased from 1.07% to 0.97%. In 2020, residing in a rural area resulted in a lower odds of having coordinated care (multivariable odds ratio = 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.95). CONCLUSION: The first year of the COVID pandemic measurably impacted the location of U.S. radiation therapy treatment.

The landscape of digital resources in radiation oncology.

In recent years, the number of educational medical resources accessible to residents and practicing radiation oncologists online has grown exponentially to include discussion boards, wikis, videos, podcasts, journal clubs, online communities, and interactive experiences to augment medical education. In this review, we identify, catalog, and critically evaluate educational websites, smartphone applications, web-based multimedia, and podcasts for radiation oncologists. Literature searches were conducted over a 2-month period (April to May 2022) using OVID-MEDLINE and PubMed with a combination of relevant search terms. Websites of relevant radiation oncology societies were reviewed for e-learning resources. Internet searches including the Google search engine, application stores, and podcast-publisher websites were conducted to identify digital resources for radiation oncology education. To ensure credibility, resources were assessed by two independent reviewers utilizing the criteria of authority, accuracy, objectivity, currency, depth, and appearance per suggested formats for evaluating digital resources in medical literature. Literature searches using OVID-MEDLINE and PubMed yielded 425 citations. Those pertinent to radiation oncology provide examples of resource development, integrations into curriculum, interactive modules, case studies, and learner experiences. The multilevel search identified 47 free digital education resources including online radiation oncology tutorials, podcasts, videos, slide sets, applications, and other interactive resources, some requiring membership or a fee for full access. The myriad online educational tools available to radiation oncology residents represent excellent resources for continuing education. This review represents the first comprehensive summary of available online education resources for radiation oncologists to guide clinicians who are increasingly reliant on digital resources, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Geography of Employment Outcomes for Radiation Oncology Graduates in 2019.

PURPOSE: The geographic distribution of practicing radiation oncologists is of concern for multiple stakeholders within the field. Employment outcomes of graduating residents can affect that distribution, and they are of major concern to current residents. Data investigating employment outcomes of recent graduates are sparse. We aimed to analyze the employment outcomes of the radiation oncology residency class of 2019. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using publicly available information, we identified the employment of 179 of 183 graduating residents in the class of 2019. For each, the place of employment, residency program, and medical school were geocoded using Google Maps. We used the rural-urban continuum code (RUCC) published by the United States Department of Agriculture to determine the rurality of each location and compared employment outcomes by RUCC and program size. RESULTS: Two thirds of graduates (66%) took a position in a county within a metropolitan area with a population greater than 1,000,000 people; only 3.4% took a position in a county outside of a metropolitan area. Graduates of smaller programs (≤6 residents) and those in smaller metropolitan areas were more likely to take positions in smaller metropolitan areas or nonmetropolitan areas. The geographic distance between location of employment and residency program did not significantly vary by program size or size of metropolitan area where a residency program was located. CONCLUSIONS: Among the class of 2019, a small proportion took positions in nonmetropolitan areas. Smaller programs and those in smaller metropolitan areas may be more likely to produce graduates that practice in similar settings, but those graduates might not do so locally. We advocate for a centralized, prospective data collection of employment outcomes for graduating residents to refine these analyses and to reduce employment prospect information asymmetry for trainees.

Nonclinical Time in U.S. Radiation Oncology Residency Programs: Number of Months and Resident Opinion of Value.

PURPOSE: Data regarding the amount and use of nonclinical time (NCT) in radiation oncology residency programs are scarce. We surveyed every U.S. radiation oncology residency program to obtain benchmark data to inform decisions about optimal program structure. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An anonymous, web-based survey was distributed to postgraduate year 5 residents at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited radiation oncology training programs. The survey included 33 yes/no, Likert-scale, and free-response questions. Program data were analyzed for all programs, including those considered "top 10" per Doximity and those "not top 10." Likert-scale responses were dichotomized as "not as satisfied" (1, 2, 3) or "very satisfied" (4, 5). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-six residents (69%) completed the survey. Program-specific data were obtained for 100% of programs (n = 82). Almost all training programs (98%) provide residents with protected NCT. Including programs with no NCT, the median NCT is 10 months in all programs. The median NCT is 12 months in "top 10" programs and 9 months in "not top 10" programs (P < .01). Most programs (68%) reported >6 months of NCT. The proportion of residents wanting more NCT decreased as the amount of NCT increased (73%, 52%, and 19% for 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months, respectively; P < .01). The proportion of residents who were very satisfied with NCT flexibility increased with more NCT (64%, 79%, and 94% for 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months, respectively; P < .01), as did the proportion of residents who were very satisfied with accomplishments during NCT (35%, 53%, and 72% for 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months, respectively; P < .01). When asked whether residents would theoretically give up some NCT to shorten residency, the proportion of residents willing to shorten their residencies decreased as the amount of NCT increased (65%, 47%, and 33% for 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months respectively; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Programs should maintain an emphasis on NCT and implement measures to ensure meaningful resident experiences.