Hypofractionation for breast cancer: lessons learned from our neighbors to the north and across the pond.

Adjuvant whole breast irradiation was established within the standard of care for breast-conserving therapy in the early 1980s, following the results of major randomized trials comparing mastectomy vs breast-conserving surgery and radiation. Since that time, techniques and treatment strategies have evolved, but one major thread that carries forward is the need to balance cost, efficacy, complications, and convenience. Fortunately, data from randomized trials conducted in Canada and Great Britain provide a solid framework for the consideration of hypofractionated radiation in the treatment of breast cancer. In this review we discuss the rationale and underlying radiobiologic concepts for hypofractionation, and review the clinical trials and American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) guidelines supporting this approach. We also review the practical considerations for treatment planning, including dosimetric criteria and how to approach treatment of the node-positive patient. In the current era of healthcare reform and cost awareness, thoughtful utilization of hypofractionation may offer considerable savings to individual patients and the healthcare system--without compromising clinical outcomes or quality of life.

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.

Radiation and Cancer Biology Educators of Radiation Oncology Residents and the Courses They Teach1.

The purpose of this study was to characterize today's radiation and cancer biology educators of radiation oncology residents, and the biology courses they teach. An e-mail list of 133 presumptive resident biology educators was compiled, and they were invited to participate in a 46-item survey. Survey questions were designed to collect information about the educational and academic backgrounds of the educators, how they self-identify, characteristics of the courses they teach, the value that they assign to their teaching activities, their level of satisfaction with their courses and how they see these courses being taught in the future. Findings of this survey were compared and contrasted with prior surveys of biology educators (conducted 12 and 20 years ago, respectively), and with more recent surveys of radiation oncology residents and radiation oncology residency program directors conducted in 2018 and 2019. A total of 67 survey responses were received. Biology educators range in age, academic rank and years of teaching experience from junior (18%) to quite senior (45%). Only about 40% self-identify as radiation biologists, biophysicists or chemists, compared to 56% in 2001. The majority of the others consist of cancer biologists (15%), radiation oncologists (15%) and radiation oncology physician-scientists (16%). Educators prioritize their resident teaching as important or very important. Biology courses are widely variable in contact hours between programs and have not changed significantly over the past 20 years. About 75% of the courses are team-taught, including 15% involving multiple training programs. An average biology course consists of about 42% foundational ("classical") radiobiology, 28% clinical radiobiology and 28% cancer biology. While biology educators and radiation oncology program directors are highly satisfied with their biology courses, approximately a third of residents report being not very, or not at all, satisfied. That fewer biology educators are radiobiologists by training and their courses have remained quite variable in length and content over long periods point to the need for a consensus core curriculum for resident education in radiation and cancer biology. Both current educators and program directors also support making online teaching resources available, diversifying course instructors and consolidating biology teaching across multiple training programs.

Recent initiatives for radiation oncology resident education in radiation and cancer biology.

Nearly all residents from accredited radiation oncology residency programs in the United States are required to take the American College of Radiology (ACR) In-Training examination each year. The test is comprised of three sections: Clinical Radiation Oncology, Radiological Physics, and Radiation (and Cancer) Biology. Here we provide an update on changes to the biology portion of the ACR exam. We also discuss the availability and use of the ACR and biology practice exams as assessment and teaching tools for both the instructors of radiation and cancer biology and the residents they teach.

A history and overview of the certification exam for medical dosimetrists.

During the last century, the creation and implementation of board certification has had a powerful impact on the medical community. Board certification has helped to shape the scope and practice of medical professionals and the care they provide, as well as to influence the way the health insurance industry sets standards for reimbursement. One profession that offers board certification to its members is medical dosimetry. The Medical Dosimetrist Certification Board exam has been administered since 1988 and its content covers a broad spectrum of information from the radiation therapy sciences. The exam has strict application requirements and is rather difficult to pass. Those who pass the exam can then call themselves Certified Medical Dosimetrists. For data purposes of this study, several members of the dosimetry community were solicited to participate in a survey regarding the exam's content and history, and to provide relevant statistical data. Currently 2,177 medical dosimetrists are board certified, with an additional 1,500 estimated to be working without certification. Although board certification is not currently required to practice medical dosimetry, new legislation known as the CARE Bill could change this. The CARE Bill, if passed, would mandate nationwide compulsory licensure and/or certification for medical dosimetrists and other medical professionals who want to work in radiation-related health care. Health maintenance organizations and other insurance carriers may likewise require certification for reimbursement purposes.

Education and Training Needs in the Radiation Sciences: Problems and Potential Solutions.

This article provides a summary of presentations focused on critical education and training issues in radiation oncology, radiobiology and medical physics from a workshop conducted as part of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Radiation Research Society held in Las Vegas, NV (September 21-24, 2014). Also included in this synopsis are pertinent comments and concerns raised by audience members, as well as recommendations for addressing ongoing and future challenges.

Toward a national consensus: teaching radiobiology to radiation oncology residents.

PURPOSE: The ASTRO Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching, a committee composed of members having affiliations with several national radiation oncology and biology-related societies and organizations, commissioned a survey designed to address issues of manpower, curriculum standardization, and instructor feedback as they relate to resident training in radiation biology. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Radiation biology instructors at U.S. radiation oncology training programs were identified and asked to respond to a comprehensive electronic questionnaire dealing with instructor educational background, radiation biology course content, and sources of feedback with respect to curriculum planning and resident performance on standardized radiation biology examinations. RESULTS: Eighty-five radiation biology instructors were identified, representing 73 radiation oncology residency training programs. A total of 52 analyzable responses to the questionnaire were received, corresponding to a response rate of 61.2%. CONCLUSION: There is a decreasing supply of instructors qualified to teach classic, and to some extent, clinical, radiobiology to radiation oncology residents. Additionally, those instructors with classic training in radiobiology are less likely to be comfortable teaching cancer molecular biology or other topics in cancer biology. Thus, a gap exists in teaching the whole complement of cancer and radiobiology curricula, particularly in those programs in which the sole responsibility for teaching falls to one faculty member (50% of training programs are in this category). On average, the percentage of total teaching time devoted to classic radiobiology (50%), clinical radiobiology (30%), and molecular and cancer biology (20%) is appropriate, relative to the current makeup of the board examination. Nevertheless large variability exists between training programs with respect to the total number of contact hours per complete radiobiology course (ranging from approximately 10 to >50 h). A number of lecture topics, particularly in clinical radiobiology, are covered by fewer than 60% of training programs. A sizeable minority of radiation biology instructors are dissatisfied with the feedback they receive with respect to both course content and the performance of their residents on standardized radiobiology examinations administered by the American College of Radiology and/or the American Board of Radiology.

Toward a consensus on radiobiology teaching to radiation oncology residents.

There are approximately 82 radiation oncology residency programs in the United States, which provide training opportunities for about 400 residents. All accredited radiation oncology residency programs must have at least one basic scientist on the faculty, and it is these individuals who often assume, wholly or in part, the responsibility of teaching radiation and cancer biology to radiation oncology residents in preparation for the American College of Radiology (ACR) In-Training Examination in Radiation Oncology and the American Board of Radiology (ABR) written examinations. In response to a perceived lack of uniformity in radiation and cancer biology curricula currently being taught to residents and a perceived lack of guidance for instructors in formulating course content for this population, a special session was presented at the Forty-eighth Annual Radiation Research Society meeting on April 23, 2001. The session, entitled "Toward a Consensus on Radiobiology Teaching to Radiation Oncology Residents", was focused on issues related to teaching radiobiology to radiation oncology residents and targeted for individuals who actively teach radiation and cancer biology as well as coordinators of residency training programs. The speakers addressed current challenges and future problems facing instructors and programs. Among these were lack of feedback on resident performance on ABR and ACR written examinations and on course content, uncertainty about what topics residents must know to pass the ABR examination, and, in the near future, a reduction (due to retirement) of instructors qualified to teach radiobiology. This article provides a synopsis of the information that was presented during that session, offers a glimpse into how the ABR and ACR examinations are prepared and details of the content of past and future examinations, and summarizes the activities of the Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching which was formed to educate instructors, to establish a consensus for course curricula, and to improve the overall quality of resident teaching.

Education and training for radiation scientists: radiation research program and American Society of Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology Workshop, Bethesda, Maryland, May 12-14, 2003.

Current and potential shortfalls in the number of radiation scientists stand in sharp contrast to the emerging scientific opportunities and the need for new knowledge to address issues of cancer survivorship and radiological and nuclear terrorism. In response to these challenges, workshops organized by the Radiation Research Program (RRP), National Cancer Institute (NCI) (Radiat. Res. 157, 204-223, 2002; Radiat. Res. 159, 812-834, 2003), and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) (Nature, 421, 787, 2003) have engaged experts from a range of federal agencies, academia and industry. This workshop, Education and Training for Radiation Scientists, addressed the need to establish a sustainable pool of expertise and talent for a wide range of activities and careers related to radiation biology, oncology and epidemiology. Although fundamental radiation chemistry and physics are also critical to radiation sciences, this workshop did not address workforce needs in these areas. The recommendations include: (1) Establish a National Council of Radiation Sciences to develop a strategy for increasing the number of radiation scientists. The strategy includes NIH training grants, interagency cooperation, interinstitutional collaboration among universities, and active involvement of all stakeholders. (2) Create new and expanded training programs with sustained funding. These may take the form of regional Centers of Excellence for Radiation Sciences. (3) Continue and broaden educational efforts of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology (ASTRO), the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), and the Radiation Research Society (RRS). (4) Foster education and training in the radiation sciences for the range of career opportunities including radiation oncology, radiation biology, radiation epidemiology, radiation safety, health/government policy, and industrial research. (5) Educate other scientists and the general public on the quantitative, basic, molecular, translational and applied aspects of radiation sciences.

American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) survey of radiation biology educators in U.S. and Canadian radiation oncology residency programs.

PURPOSE: To obtain, in a survey-based study, detailed information on the faculty currently responsible for teaching radiation biology courses to radiation oncology residents in the United States and Canada. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In March-December 2007 a survey questionnaire was sent to faculty having primary responsibility for teaching radiation biology to residents in 93 radiation oncology residency programs in the United States and Canada. RESULTS: The responses to this survey document the aging of the faculty who have primary responsibility for teaching radiation biology to radiation oncology residents. The survey found a dramatic decline with time in the percentage of educators whose graduate training was in radiation biology. A significant number of the educators responsible for teaching radiation biology were not fully acquainted with the radiation sciences, either through training or practical application. In addition, many were unfamiliar with some of the organizations setting policies and requirements for resident education. Freely available tools, such as the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Radiation and Cancer Biology Practice Examination and Study Guides, were widely used by residents and educators. Consolidation of resident courses or use of a national radiation biology review course was viewed as unlikely by most programs. CONCLUSIONS: A high priority should be given to the development of comprehensive teaching tools to assist those individuals who have responsibility for teaching radiation biology courses but who do not have an extensive background in critical areas of radiobiology related to radiation oncology. These findings also suggest a need for new graduate programs in radiobiology.