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.

11C-Choline PET Guided Salvage Radiation Therapy for Isolated Pelvic and Paraortic Nodal Recurrence of Prostate Cancer After Radical Prostatectomy: Rationale and Early Genitourinary or Gastrointestinal Toxicities.

PURPOSE: To assess gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) adverse events (AEs) of 11C-choline-positron emission tomography (CholPET) guided lymph node (LN) radiation therapy (RT) in patients who experience biochemical failure after radical prostatectomy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From 2013 to 2016, 107 patients experienced biochemical failure of prostate cancer, had CholPET-detected pelvic and/or paraortic LN recurrence, and were referred for RT. Patients received androgen suppression and CholPET guided LN RT (median dose, 45 Gy) with a simultaneous integrated boost to CholPET-avid sites (median dose, 56.25 Gy), all in 25 fractions. RT-naïve patients had the prostatic fossa included in the initial treatment volumes followed by a sequential boost (median dose, 68 Gy). GI and GU AEs were reported per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 4.0) with data gathered retrospectively. Differences in maximum GI and GU AEs at baseline, immediately post-RT, and at early (median, 4 months) and late (median, 14 months) follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 16 months (interquartile range [IQR], 11-25). Median prostate-specific antigen at time of positive CholPET was 2.3 ng/mL (IQR, 1.3-4.8), with a median of 2 (IQR, 1-4) choline-avid LNs per patient. Most recurrences were within the pelvis (53%) or pelvis + paraortic (40%). Baseline rates of grade 1 to 2 GI AEs were 8.4% compared with 51.9% (4.7% grade 2) of patients post-RT (P < .01). These differences resolved by 4-month (12.2%, P = .65) and 14-month AE assessments (9.1%, P = .87). There was no significant change in grade 1 to 2 GU AEs post-RT (64.1%) relative to baseline (56.0%, P = .21), although differences did arise at 4-month (72.2%, P = .01) and 14-month (74.3%, P = .01) AE assessments. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage CholPET guided nodal RT has acceptably low rates of acute GI and GU AEs and no significant detriment in 14-month GI AEs. These data are of value in counseling patients and designing prospective trials evaluating the oncologic efficacy of this treatment strategy.